https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cite4wiki/ (in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki )
right click and paste in the article. Easier than that can't be ;) _____ *Béria Lima* <http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.* On 1 November 2011 23:39, Mateus Nobre <[email protected]> wrote: > > Agree with David. > > We ask for sources everywhere, every place of Wikipedia have ''Cite your > Sources''. How could a newbie know how to quote a reference in: <Ref>{{cite > web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref> ? > > And then a newbie get out of the 70% who doesn't saves (funny, it's 70% of > waiver and we still have infinite vandalism...) and finally, finally, > saves, some pseudo-user (a bot disguised as a user, reverting vandalisms > and sending automatic messages 24/7) reverts the newbie cause he doesn't > put a source, the newbie gives up. At his second day he have new messages > saying ''You didn't put the source. Put a source or I'll revert you againd > and again.'' -so, he: ''How could I do that?'' - and the user: easy: > ''<Ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= > |accessdate= }}</ref>'' > > True story. > > Something have to change about the sources. I learned put sources after > one week trying to learn and not miss the code. > > If the sources are so important to Wikipedia, this has to be easier to > newbies. > > _____________________ > MateusNobre > Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects > (+55) 85 88393509 > 30440865 > > > > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 04:14:28 +0200 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:06 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 31 October 2011 13:01, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> I imagine for the other 14.6 percent the > > >> process goes something along the lines of "oh, it says I can make the > > >> changes myself, lets do thaWAUGH, WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME DOES ALL THIS > TEXT > > >> MEAN" > > > > > > > > > I've been editing nearly 8 years and I get that reaction ... here's to > > > usable WYSIWYG! > > > > > > > > > > > > Purely aside from the clutter effect of all those tags, particularly > > the references syntax is remarkably opaque. I would imagine a huge > > part of non-stickyness of edits and the > > subsequent demoralisation, stems from the steep learing curve for > > citing sources, Personally I have added a few refences, and each time > > had to pore with considerabe expense of time > > over the relevant help and policy pages. It really is hard to remember > > how the syntax works. > > Would it be overwhelmingly hard to program a pop-up dialogue which > > would first ask which type of source the editor is citing from, which > > would lead to a form with labeled textboxes for the > > various elements of a reference citation with an asterisk beside the > > elements considered vital. My guess is that quite a few of the > > elements of such are already in the code. > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
